Professional Documents
Culture Documents
February
Executive Overview
Recent advances in the field of neuroscience can significantly add to our understanding of leadership and
its development. Specifically, we are interested in what neuroscience can tell us about inspirational
leadership. Based on our findings, we discuss how future research in leadership can be combined with
neuroscience, as well as potential neurofeedback interventions for the purpose of leadership development.
We also consider ethical implications and applications to management-related areas beyond leadership.
* David A. Waldman (waldman@asu.edu) is a Professor in the Department of Management at the W. P. Carey School of Business, Arizona
State University.
Pierre A. Balthazard (Pierre.Balthazard@asu.edu) is an Associate Professor in the Department of Information Systems at the W. P. Carey
School of Business, Arizona State University.
Suzanne J. Peterson (Suzanne.Peterson@asu.edu) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Management at the W. P. Carey School
of Business, Arizona State University.
Copyright by the Academy of Management; all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, e-mailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holders express written
permission. Users may print, download, or e-mail articles for individual use only.
2011
61
62
February
2011
63
Various authors have proposed a specific neurological basis for emotional intelligence or skills
(Ashkanasy, 2003; Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee,
2001). Goleman et al. (2001) noted that emotional intelligence has a basis in brain circuitry
and further suggested that it derives from how
cortical regions of the brain interpret and manage
neurotransmitter signals from the brains limbic
system. Morse (2006) suggested that a leaders use
of emotions and reasoning for the purpose of formulating and espousing a vision has a basis in the
limbic system. Naqvi, Shiv, and Bechara (2006)
further suggested that parts of the brain, such as
the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, may help a
person to balance emotions in decision making,
especially in situations in which outcomes are
ambiguous or uncertain. There is also recent research showing that regions of the cortex may
help to assess risk and guide behaviors in anticipation of emotional consequences, including such
negative consequences as fear and despair (Paulus,
Rogalsky, Simmons, Feinstein, & Stein. 2003;
Sanfey et al., 2003).
Beyond emphasizing the different hemispheres
of the brain (left and right), it seems logical to
focus on the frontal regions of the brain (as opposed to the distal or posterior regions). This is
because the front part of the brain may be especially involved in the regulation and expression of
emotions, as well as higher cognitive functioning
such as goal-directed or visionary behavior (Hagmann, Cammoun, Gigandet, Meuli, & Honey,
2008). For instance, Heisel and Beatty (2006)
found the right frontal part of the brain to be
essential for effective interpersonal communication and social relationships. Moreover, it has
been shown that right frontal dysfunction gives
rise to antisocial behavior and an inability to
understand relationships with other people (i.e.,
social skills, mood control, and awareness of self;
see Salloway, Malloy, & Duffy, 2001) and difficulties balancing emotions in decision making under
conditions of uncertainty (Naqvi et al., 2006). In
sum, the social/emotional skills or abilities associated with right frontal activity might also be
relevant to behaviors involved in inspirational
leadership, especially the espousal of socialized
visionary communication. In addition, in line
64
February
their precision and exact capabilities, but nevertheless represent a large improvement over past
techniques in their ability to detect and quantify
key aspects of brain activity.
For our research program, we have chosen to
use qEEG, which employs advanced signal processing techniques to infer data about the brain
through the scalp and skull (Niedermeyer & Silva,
1995). The data produced by qEEG can be readily
used in conjunction with statistical analysis programs. In addition, qEEG is relatively inexpensive, portable, and non-invasive, and its use involves no health risk. Unlike fMRI and other
methods that require people to remain immobilized in an unnatural setting (that is, in a clinical
setting within a confined tube), qEEG assessment
can be completed while people are comfortably
seated and engaged in everyday tasksincluding
conversations associated with the type of vision
communication task described below.
Two basic measurements are commonly used to
analyze a qEEG recording: (1) the amplitude, or
the size of the electrical waves, and (2) the frequency, or the number of waves per second. Amplitude and frequency of brain waves can be assessed with regard to five bandwidths and range
from low arousal (sleeping) to high arousal (extreme alertness). From lowest to highest arousal
levels, these bandwidths are known as delta, theta,
alpha, beta, and gamma rhythms. In the current
research, we were interested in examining brain
activity in the beta rhythm because beta waves are
the most prevalent in the alert brain. In addition,
beta waves are involved with affective and cognitive processes, selective attention, concentration,
and anticipation (Classen, Gerloff, Honda, &
Hallet, 1998). More will be said below regarding
our use of beta waves and coherence in our study
of the relationship between neurological functioning and inspirational leadership.
A Study of Business Executives
s an illustration, we now describe a specific
research project that we conducted in our
attempt to link qEEG assessment with inspirational leadership. We collected qEEG data,
coded visionary communication statements, and
rated leadership data from a diverse sample of 50
2011
The 19 scalp locations, including the right frontal areas Fp2, F4, and
F8, are based on the International 10/20 system of electrode placement that
was originally developed by Jasper (1958).
65
66
To explore the robustness of our findings we examined the relationship between socialized vision communication and coherence in several
other regions in the brain (e.g., left frontal coherence). The purpose of
these analyses was to eliminate the possibility that coherence in general
(i.e., in any region of the brain) might be related to socialized vision
communication. In none of these instances did we find a significant
relationship between coherence and socialized vision communication.
February
2011
67
Figure 1
Case Examples of the Right Front Coherence of Leaders
Note: Grayscale translation of a color spectral analysis of right front coherence. The gradient shows the levels of beta coherence from the perspective
of the three right frontal electrode locations, including areas at 0% (indicated by the minus signs), areas at 100% (indicated by plus signs), and areas in
between. Dark regions with plus () signs represent areas with high degrees of coherence (75% or higher) while dark regions with minus (-) signs represent
areas with low coherence (25% or lower). The numerical values of .69 and .17 represent the summed and averaged coherence scores for the Fp2, F4, and
F8 regions for respective leaders.
followers. Concomitantly, the qEEG analysis revealed high frontal right hemisphere coherence
(69%) for this individual.
Leader #2 is a 48-year-old senior executive in
an engineering/construction firm. In the housing
boom of the early 2000s, leader #2 changed employers several times while simultaneously gaining
higher-level management positions. Despite this
persons personal success at navigating the corporate ladder, in response to the vision task, this
individual offered only a non-socialized or generic
view of the future: to produce good products.
Leader #2 then became frustrated and apologized
for the (self-perceived) less-than-adequate responses. Overall, crafting the vision seemed to be
difficult and somewhat frustrating, with the coded
socialized vision score ranking very low. Leader #2
also produced one of the lowest scores recorded in
our research in terms of follower ratings of inspi-
68
performance outcomes). Despite honing leadership constructs and theory, researchers have typically not been able to account for more than 10%
of the variance in outcomes (Bass & Bass, 2009).
Neuroscience techniques and theories present
the potential for important breakthroughs. Thus,
we agree with Lieberman (2007, p. 279), who
suggested that social cognitive neuroscience can
contribute to the development of new theories
and the enrichment of existing theories within
the social sciences, demonstrating that social cognitive neuroscience can be both a science of new
techniques and a science of new ideas. Furthermore, in line with our work, Cacioppo et al.
(2003, p. 653) stated that an understanding of
where and how activity in the brain covaries with
a social process, construct, or representations . . .
has the potential to inform theory.
In short, traditional attempts to observe leader
behavior, clinically or through survey methodology, can go only so far in terms of our understanding of leadership processes and their outcomes.
Neuroscience and its associated methodologies
hold the potential for a much broader understanding of the source of such behavior. For example, a
common theme of theories of effective leadership
is that both cognitive and affective (or emotional)
elements come into play. As noted by Phelps
(2006), the neural circuitries of cognition and
affect/emotion are intertwined in decision making
and reasoning processes. Through neuroscience
methodology, cognition and emotion can be theorized and examined simultaneously in order to
fully understand the neurological basis of effective
leadership. That said, however, we also recognize
that effective leadership is a broad concept. Thus,
theoretical and empirical attempts to link neurological phenomena to leadership might best be
limited to somewhat focused or narrow qualities
and behaviors. In the research summarized here,
we have attempted to link neuronal coherence to
socialized vision, rather than pursuing broader
linkages to more general characterizations of effective leadership.
In sum, we suggest that neuroscience has the
potential to greatly inform theory and assessment
pertaining to leadership and other managerial
phenomena (e.g., decision making) described be-
February
2011
69
70
February
lutely critical. For example, neuroscience, behavioral, and management expertise would need to be
fused to achieve the type of broadened approach
to leadership development suggested here. We
suggest that the key to going down this road is not
for single individuals to develop all of the necessary expertise. Rather, the practical solution is to
form research or application teams containing
that expertise. Obviously, efforts of this nature can
run counter to traditions, norms, and even organizational structures that may have been focused
on the development and application of knowledge
within particular specialties (e.g., organizational
behavior, human resource management, and so
forth).
As we move forward, it is also important to
recognize the moral and ethical implications of
work directed toward linking neuroscience and
leadership. The forms of leadership investigated
here represent positive, constructive approaches
toward influencing individuals and groups. However, we acknowledge that a darker side exists
with regard to leadership in the form of manipulation and personalized vision (House & Howell,
1992). It is imperative that future efforts to use
neurofeedback for the purpose of leadership development be cognizant of such distinctions, and that
attempts be made to promote only positive uses of
such technologies.
Future Research Directions
e envision additional research directions beyond what has been described here. For example, in line with the vast majority of
existing leadership theory and research, we have
focused on individual leaders who occupy formal
hierarchical roles. A broader perspective depicts
leadership as a process of positive influence in
which formal leaders are only a part (Day, 2000).
Day, Gronn, and Salas (2004) suggested that the
overall leadership capacity of an entity is a form of
social capital that involves the sharedness, distributedness, and connectivity of members of the entity. Along related lines, Pearce and Conger
(2003) defined shared leadership in terms of a
dynamic process of mutual influence among peers
or individuals at differing hierarchical levels in an
organization. Accordingly, to fully understand
2011
71
72
References
Adolphs, R. (2009). The social brain: Neural basis of social
knowledge. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 693716.
Arvey, R. D., Rotundo, M., Johnson, W., Zhang, Z., &
McGue, M. (2006). The determinants of leadership role
occupancy: Genetic and personality factors. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 120.
Arvey, R. D., Zhang, Z., Avolio, B. J., & Kruger, R. F.
(2007). Developmental and genetic determinants of
leadership role occupancy among women. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 693706.
Ashkanasy, N. M. (2003). Emotions in organizations: A
multi-level perspective. Research in Multi-Level Issues, 2,
9 54.
February
2011
Fava, M. (1997). Psychopharmacologic treatment of pathologic aggression. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 20,
42751.
Finkelstein, S., & Hambrick, D. (1996). Strategic leadership:
Top executives and their effects on organizations. St. Paul,
MN: West Publishing.
Flynn, F. J., & Staw, B. M. (2004). Lend me your wallets:
The effect of charismatic leadership on external support
for an organization. Strategic Management Journal, 25,
309 330.
George, J. M. (2000). Emotions and leadership: The role of
emotional intelligence. Human Relations, 53, 1027
1055.
Goleman, D. (1998). What makes a leader? Harvard Business
Review, 76, 93102.
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2001). Primal
leadership. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Greene, J. D., Sommerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley,
J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An fMRI investigation of
emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science, 293,
21052108.
Gruzelier, J., Egner, T., & Vernon, D. (2006). Validating
the efficacy of neurofeedback for optimising performance. Progress in Brain Research, 159, 421 431.
Hagmann, P., Cammoun, L., Gigandet, X., Meuli, R., &
Honey, C. J. (2008). Mapping the structural core of
human cerebral cortex. PLoS Biology, 6, 115.
Haines, S. (2009). Bankrupt leadership development? Training, 46, 64.
Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons:
The organization as a reflection of its top managers.
Academy of Management Review, 9, 193206.
Hanslmayer, S., Sauseng, P., Doppelmayr, M., Schabus, M.,
& Klimesch, W. (2005). Increasing individual upper
alpha by neurofeedback improves cognitive performance
in human subjects. Applied Psychophysiology & Biofeedback 30(1), 110.
Heisel, A. D., & Beatty, M. J. (2006). Are cognitive representations of friends request refusals implemented in the
orbitofrontal and dorsolateral prefrontal cortices? A cognitive neuroscience approach to theory of mind in
relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
23, 249 265.
Hines, T. (1987). Left brain/right brain mythology and
implications for management and training. Academy of
Management Review, 12, 600 606.
House, R. J., & Aditya, R. (1997). The social scientific study
of leadership: Quo vadis? Journal of Management, 23,
409 474.
House, R. J., & Howell, J. M. (1992). Personality and
charismatic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 3, 81
108.
Howell, J. M., & Shamir, B. (2005). The role of followers in
the charismatic leadership process: Relationships and
their consequences. Academy of Management Review, 30,
96 112.
Humphrey, R. H. (2002). The many faces of emotional
leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 493504.
Jasper, H. H. (1958). Recent advances in our understanding
of ascending activities of the reticular system. In H. Y.
73
74
Ochsner, K. N., & Lieberman, M. D. (2001). The emergence of social cognitive neuroscience. American Psychologist, 56, 717734.
Paulus, M. P., Rogalsky, C., Simmons, A., Feinstein, J. S., &
Stein, M. B. (2003). Increased activation in the right
insula during risk-taking decision making is related to
harm avoidance and neuroticism. NeuroImage, 19,
1439 1448.
Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2003). All those years ago:
The historical underpinnings of shared leadership. In
C. L. Pearce and J. A. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership:
Reframing the hows and whys of leadership, pp. 118. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Phelps, E. A. (2006). Emotion and cognition: Insights from
studies of the human amygdala. Annual Review of Psychology 57, 2753.
Pinker, S. (2002). The blank slate: Modern denial of human
nature. New York: Penguin Books.
Salloway, S. P., Malloy, P. F., & Duffy, J. D. (2001). The
frontal lobes and neuropsychiatric illnesses. Washington,
DC: American Psychiatric Publishing.
Sanfey, A. G., Rilling, J. K., Aronson, J. A., Nystrom, L. E.,
& Cohen, J. D. (2003). The neural basis of economic
decision-making in the ultimatum game. Science, 300,
17551758.
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The
motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A selfconcept based theory. Organization Science, 4, 577594.
Sterman, M. B., & Egner, T. (2006). Foundation and practice of neurofeedback for the treatment of epilepsy. Applied Psychophysiology & Biofeedback, 31, 2136.
Sully de Luque, M., Washburn, N., Waldman, D. A., &
February